bubbadog said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

It's her right to refuse Sanders, and no one is saying otherwise.

---

You're right, I haven't seen anyone say that. But I have seen a load of outrage.

Assuming there indeed is a parallel between this case and the Colorado baker, do those who side with the baker think that those on the other side are justified in expressing outrage over the stand the baker took, even if they have to acknowledge now that the baker had the right to take that stand?

---

They have the right to refuse her. She and her friends should social media it, and go somewhere else.

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

So, if black people had been denied service because they were registered Republicans, you'd find that to be noble?

---

That denial would not have neen based on an immutable characteristic.

---

Would you find that to be noble?

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

So, if black people had been denied service because they were registered Republicans, you'd find that to be noble?

---

That denial would not have neen based on an immutable characteristic.

---

Would you find that to be noble?

---

Our system of justice is based on withholding privilges to those in our society whose actions/ behavior warrant doing so. Brown v Board helped clarify the moral distinction.

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

It's her right to refuse Sanders, and no one is saying otherwise.

---

You're right, I haven't seen anyone say that. But I have seen a load of outrage.

Assuming there indeed is a parallel between this case and the Colorado baker, do those who side with the baker think that those on the other side are justified in expressing outrage over the stand the baker took, even if they have to acknowledge now that the baker had the right to take that stand?

---

They have the right to refuse her. She and her friends should social media it, and go somewhere else.

---

I would think they should have a right to refuse her. That principle, however, is not universally accepted.

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Bubba
You are embarrassing yourself

Quit digging

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

---

To be accurate, the story indicates that she didn't "comp" her meal, she just didn't accept Sander's offer to pay for a meal she had ordered but was not to be served.

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

So, if black people had been denied service because they were registered Republicans, you'd find that to be noble?

The baker's case, where he was punished by force of law for declining to create a work of art, is entirely different from the owner of a restaurant deciding that she and her staff are too triggered to serve a customer because of where she works.

---

Except that she didn't say she wouldn't serve her because of where she works. She said she did so because of what Sanders DOES at the place she works. And she said she would not have refused people because of their political party or political beliefs. She was very specific about Sanders and her conduct. She even said the rest of the people in her dining party could remain (not that they would have or should have, under the circumstances -- but it's not like she kicked them out for who they were).

I suppose the owner could have been lying in what she said to the media, but that presents a very different issue than the philosophical one here, doesn't it?

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

---

With those "facts" you could land a position on MSNBC, CNN or some other MSM.

midgett said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

---

With those "facts" you could land a position on MSNBC, CNN or some other MSM.

---

You got better ones? Let's see 'em

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

---

To be accurate, the story indicates that she didn't "comp" her meal, she just didn't accept Sander's offer to pay for a meal she had ordered but was not to be served.

---

From what I read, it sounded like they already had eaten part of the meal -- appetizers, salads, etc., but not the main course.

In any event, Sanders offered to pay for everything that had been ordered, which she certainly didn't have to do. The owner didn't accept the offer nor demand payment, which would have added injury to insult.

In her tweet the next day, Sanders said that she treats everyone with courtesy and respect, which is patently untrue based on watching even a few random clips from her press briefings. Almost all presidential press secretaries have a strained relationship with the White House press corps, but I can't recall any in recent memory who were as nasty as the two who have worked for this president. The two who worked for W were models of professionalism by comparison. The fact that they weren't expected to lie on an almost daily basis might have had something to do with that, but Sarah chose this bed and isn't exactly in a position now to complain about the fleas.

midgett said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

---

With those "facts" you could land a position on MSNBC, CNN or some other MSM.

---

With your belief that facts don't matter if they're inconvenient to your cause, you could work for Fox News or Breitbart.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

So, if black people had been denied service because they were registered Republicans, you'd find that to be noble?

The baker's case, where he was punished by force of law for declining to create a work of art, is entirely different from the owner of a restaurant deciding that she and her staff are too triggered to serve a customer because of where she works.

---

Except that she didn't say she wouldn't serve her because of where she works. She said she did so because of what Sanders DOES at the place she works. And she said she would not have refused people because of their political party or political beliefs. She was very specific about Sanders and her conduct. She even said the rest of the people in her dining party could remain (not that they would have or should have, under the circumstances -- but it's not like she kicked them out for who they were).

I suppose the owner could have been lying in what she said to the media, but that presents a very different issue than the philosophical one here, doesn't it?

---

You're really reaching to draw a distinction between "where she works" (the Trump Whitehouse) and what she does (works at the Trump Whitehouse).

Back to the comparison between the baker and the restaurant owner, the baker was punished by force of law, and that law was not struck down, he just won on narrower grounds. If someone tries to bring the restaurant owner up before the Virginia Tribunal for the Civil Rights of Federal Employees and she is sanctioned for her actions, then the situations would become analogous.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

So, if black people had been denied service because they were registered Republicans, you'd find that to be noble?

The baker's case, where he was punished by force of law for declining to create a work of art, is entirely different from the owner of a restaurant deciding that she and her staff are too triggered to serve a customer because of where she works.

---

Except that she didn't say she wouldn't serve her because of where she works. She said she did so because of what Sanders DOES at the place she works. And she said she would not have refused people because of their political party or political beliefs. She was very specific about Sanders and her conduct. She even said the rest of the people in her dining party could remain (not that they would have or should have, under the circumstances -- but it's not like she kicked them out for who they were).

I suppose the owner could have been lying in what she said to the media, but that presents a very different issue than the philosophical one here, doesn't it?

---

You're really reaching to draw a distinction between "where she works" (the Trump Whitehouse) and what she does (works at the Trump Whitehouse).

Back to the comparison between the baker and the restaurant owner, the baker was punished by force of law, and that law was not struck down, he just won on narrower grounds. If someone tries to bring the restaurant owner up before the Virginia Tribunal for the Civil Rights of Federal Employees and she is sanctioned for her actions, then the situations would become analogous.

---

If a person works in hospice and rather than making end of life care as compassionate as humanly possible, he/she harms people, what she does at work matters. As I have said many times, Sarah obfuscates and lies without dilemma and that matters.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

So, if black people had been denied service because they were registered Republicans, you'd find that to be noble?

The baker's case, where he was punished by force of law for declining to create a work of art, is entirely different from the owner of a restaurant deciding that she and her staff are too triggered to serve a customer because of where she works.

---

Except that she didn't say she wouldn't serve her because of where she works. She said she did so because of what Sanders DOES at the place she works. And she said she would not have refused people because of their political party or political beliefs. She was very specific about Sanders and her conduct. She even said the rest of the people in her dining party could remain (not that they would have or should have, under the circumstances -- but it's not like she kicked them out for who they were).

I suppose the owner could have been lying in what she said to the media, but that presents a very different issue than the philosophical one here, doesn't it?

---

You're really reaching to draw a distinction between "where she works" (the Trump Whitehouse) and what she does (works at the Trump Whitehouse).

Back to the comparison between the baker and the restaurant owner, the baker was punished by force of law, and that law was not struck down, he just won on narrower grounds. If someone tries to bring the restaurant owner up before the Virginia Tribunal for the Civil Rights of Federal Employees and she is sanctioned for her actions, then the situations would become analogous.

---

If you can take the owner at her word, she said it wasn't because she worked at the White House. It was because she regularly lied to the public in the course of her work. That's a valid distinction, unless the claim is that everyone who works for this White House lies regularly to the public. Sanders' tweet claimed it was because of where she worked, which makes it look more like a case of identity persecution, but that's not what the owner said.

The M.O. of this Supreme Court is to stave off sweeping decisions as long as they can by making a series of narrower decisions and hoping the issue might resolve itself somehow. It's what they did with gay marriage, hoping that the various states would settle it, until conflicting federal court opinions meant they had to decide the issue broadly. It's what they're doing with the gerrymandering case in Wisconsin. But as with gay marriage, the majority have already tipped their hand, even in a decision that they intend to be narrow. Do you believe they really would have decided the Colorado case differently if only one member of that state commission hadn't spoken wrongly? I don't.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

---

To be accurate, the story indicates that she didn't "comp" her meal, she just didn't accept Sander's offer to pay for a meal she had ordered but was not to be served.

---

From what I read, it sounded like they already had eaten part of the meal -- appetizers, salads, etc., but not the main course.

In any event, Sanders offered to pay for everything that had been ordered, which she certainly didn't have to do. The owner didn't accept the offer nor demand payment, which would have added injury to insult.

In her tweet the next day, Sanders said that she treats everyone with courtesy and respect, which is patently untrue based on watching even a few random clips from her press briefings. Almost all presidential press secretaries have a strained relationship with the White House press corps, but I can't recall any in recent memory who were as nasty as the two who have worked for this president. The two who worked for W were models of professionalism by comparison. The fact that they weren't expected to lie on an almost daily basis might have had something to do with that, but Sarah chose this bed and isn't exactly in a position now to complain about the fleas.

---

The restaurant owner reported that Sanders treated her with courtesy and respect. Not sure why you are so anxious to question her report. It actually speaks pretty well of Sanders that she didn't go ballistic on the restaurant owner. Many public figures have done so over much less an insult than being seated at a restaurant, having your order taken and then having the owner throw you out.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

---

To be accurate, the story indicates that she didn't "comp" her meal, she just didn't accept Sander's offer to pay for a meal she had ordered but was not to be served.

---

From what I read, it sounded like they already had eaten part of the meal -- appetizers, salads, etc., but not the main course.

In any event, Sanders offered to pay for everything that had been ordered, which she certainly didn't have to do. The owner didn't accept the offer nor demand payment, which would have added injury to insult.

In her tweet the next day, Sanders said that she treats everyone with courtesy and respect, which is patently untrue based on watching even a few random clips from her press briefings. Almost all presidential press secretaries have a strained relationship with the White House press corps, but I can't recall any in recent memory who were as nasty as the two who have worked for this president. The two who worked for W were models of professionalism by comparison. The fact that they weren't expected to lie on an almost daily basis might have had something to do with that, but Sarah chose this bed and isn't exactly in a position now to complain about the fleas.

---

The restaurant owner reported that Sanders treated her with courtesy and respect. Not sure why you are so anxious to question her report. It actually speaks pretty well of Sanders that she didn't go ballistic on the restaurant owner. Many public figures have done so over much less an insult than being seated at a restaurant, having your order taken and then having the owner throw you out.

---

I'm not questioning whether Sanders behaved with courtesy and respect at the restaurant. I am saying that, in their later statements, the respective parties differed on why Sanders was asked to leave.

And in her tweet, Sanders said she always tries to treat people with courtesy and respect. Key word being "always." She may have done so at the restaurant. She clearly does not always do so in her professional life.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

So, if black people had been denied service because they were registered Republicans, you'd find that to be noble?

The baker's case, where he was punished by force of law for declining to create a work of art, is entirely different from the owner of a restaurant deciding that she and her staff are too triggered to serve a customer because of where she works.

---

Except that she didn't say she wouldn't serve her because of where she works. She said she did so because of what Sanders DOES at the place she works. And she said she would not have refused people because of their political party or political beliefs. She was very specific about Sanders and her conduct. She even said the rest of the people in her dining party could remain (not that they would have or should have, under the circumstances -- but it's not like she kicked them out for who they were).

I suppose the owner could have been lying in what she said to the media, but that presents a very different issue than the philosophical one here, doesn't it?

---

You're really reaching to draw a distinction between "where she works" (the Trump Whitehouse) and what she does (works at the Trump Whitehouse).

Back to the comparison between the baker and the restaurant owner, the baker was punished by force of law, and that law was not struck down, he just won on narrower grounds. If someone tries to bring the restaurant owner up before the Virginia Tribunal for the Civil Rights of Federal Employees and she is sanctioned for her actions, then the situations would become analogous.

---

If you can take the owner at her word, she said it wasn't because she worked at the White House. It was because she regularly lied to the public in the course of her work. That's a valid distinction, unless the claim is that everyone who works for this White House lies regularly to the public. Sanders' tweet claimed it was because of where she worked, which makes it look more like a case of identity persecution, but that's not what the owner said.

The M.O. of this Supreme Court is to stave off sweeping decisions as long as they can by making a series of narrower decisions and hoping the issue might resolve itself somehow. It's what they did with gay marriage, hoping that the various states would settle it, until conflicting federal court opinions meant they had to decide the issue broadly. It's what they're doing with the gerrymandering case in Wisconsin. But as with gay marriage, the majority have already tipped their hand, even in a decision that they intend to be narrow. Do you believe they really would have decided the Colorado case differently if only one member of that state commission hadn't spoken wrongly? I don't.

---

Where she worked vs. what the owner believes she does at her work is a distinction without a difference. She was thrown out because the staff recognized her and they were upset because they didn't want to serve a person they hated and they called the boss at home about it to see if she would throw Sanders out.

As for the Supreme Court, I know that they left the law intact, so a baker in Colorado can still be dragged before an tribunal to answer for the crime of not producing art, despite your post earlier that a similar baker would not face that same situation. Depending on who is appointing justices, the next case could come out quite differently.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Where she worked vs. what the owner believes she does at her work is a distinction without a difference. She was thrown out because the staff recognized her and they were upset because they didn't want to serve a person they hated and they called the boss at home about it to see if she would throw Sanders out.

---

Entirely disagree with this first sentence. For Sanders, claiming she was asked to leave entirely because of where she worked entirely absolves her of any consequences resulting from what she does in that workplace. It's a way of making it sound like was being persecuted for something that wasn't specifically her fault rather than shunned for her behavior.

Raj Shah, the deputy who sometimes handles press briefings, is fairly recognizable. Would he have been asked to leave this restaurant? It's an untestable proposition, obviously. But I can say that his conduct in his job differs from Sarah Sanders' behavior. Whenever I have seen and heard him, Shah is professional, doesn't go out of his way to attack members of the press (both personally and professionally, as I have seen Sanders do), and above all, doesn't seem to make a habit of stating bald-faced lies.

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

bubbadog said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Where she worked vs. what the owner believes she does at her work is a distinction without a difference. She was thrown out because the staff recognized her and they were upset because they didn't want to serve a person they hated and they called the boss at home about it to see if she would throw Sanders out.

---

Entirely disagree with this first sentence. For Sanders, claiming she was asked to leave entirely because of where she worked entirely absolves her of any consequences resulting from what she does in that workplace. It's a way of making it sound like was being persecuted for something that wasn't specifically her fault rather than shunned for her behavior.

Raj Shah, the deputy who sometimes handles press briefings, is fairly recognizable. Would he have been asked to leave this restaurant? It's an untestable proposition, obviously. But I can say that his conduct in his job differs from Sarah Sanders' behavior. Whenever I have seen and heard him, Shah is professional, doesn't go out of his way to attack members of the press (both personally and professionally, as I have seen Sanders do), and above all, doesn't seem to make a habit of stating bald-faced lies.

---

The reasons (or excuses, if you prefer) given for throwing her out of the restaurant include the fact that several Red Hen employees are gay, and they knew Sanders had defended Trump's desire to bar transgender people from the military. The other reason given was that she evaded questions about the detention of those who had illegally crossed the border. You have made it quite clear that you don't like Sanders. I don't watch her briefings, so I cannot comment about her poor treatment of the press. Let's not pretend, however, that this case was something it wasn't. This was a case employees so upset at the thought of serving someone who spoke in support of Trump's position on transgendered military personnel that they called the boss at home to ask her to throw the person out of the restaurant.

Forest Bueller said:

---

It's amazing the gymnastics some have taken to, justifying refusing to serve basic food to a human being.

It might be a right, but Sanders didn't ask her to cater a private Republican event or make some custom creation to celebrate Sanders belief system, she just wanted a meal, one they sell dozens of times a day, she didn't ask them to customize it for her particular ideology, just a meal.

It has zero in common with the baker's situation.

Not gonna make another comment on it, just that it's astounding the sane people who are justifying refusing basic service to someone who asked for nothing out of the ordinary.

---

Trump is worse than Hitler and she's a modern day Joseph Goebbels. Would you have served Joseph Goebbels a Weinerschnitzel? Shame on you.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

It's amazing the gymnastics some have taken to, justifying refusing to serve basic food to a human being.

It might be a right, but Sanders didn't ask her to cater a private Republican event or make some custom creation to celebrate Sanders belief system, she just wanted a meal, one they sell dozens of times a day, she didn't ask them to customize it for her particular ideology, just a meal.

It has zero in common with the baker's situation.

Not gonna make another comment on it, just that it's astounding the sane people who are justifying refusing basic service to someone who asked for nothing out of the ordinary.

---

Trump is worse than Hitler and she's a modern day Joseph Goebbels. Would you have served Joseph Goebbels a Weinerschnitzel? Shame on you.

---

"God is on OUR side!" she declared, as the crowd went wild. "On the side of the children. On the side of what's right. On the side of what's honorable."
"And so, let's stay the course. Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere," she yelled.
Waters remarks were then marred by a screeching microphone.
"Mr. President, we will see you every day, every hour of the day, everywhere that we are to let you know you cannot get away with this!" she yelled.
Waters was referring to Department of Homeland Security Kristjen Nielson, who was heckled in a D.C. restaurant, and later had protesters playing loud speakers outside her home.




Speaking of Hitler, these folks have the ring of such craziness...........

Forest Bueller said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

It's amazing the gymnastics some have taken to, justifying refusing to serve basic food to a human being.

It might be a right, but Sanders didn't ask her to cater a private Republican event or make some custom creation to celebrate Sanders belief system, she just wanted a meal, one they sell dozens of times a day, she didn't ask them to customize it for her particular ideology, just a meal.

It has zero in common with the baker's situation.

Not gonna make another comment on it, just that it's astounding the sane people who are justifying refusing basic service to someone who asked for nothing out of the ordinary.

---

Trump is worse than Hitler and she's a modern day Joseph Goebbels. Would you have served Joseph Goebbels a Weinerschnitzel? Shame on you.

---

"God is on OUR side!" she declared, as the crowd went wild. "On the side of the children. On the side of what's right. On the side of what's honorable."
"And so, let's stay the course. Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere," she yelled.
Waters remarks were then marred by a screeching microphone.
"Mr. President, we will see you every day, every hour of the day, everywhere that we are to let you know you cannot get away with this!" she yelled.
Waters was referring to Department of Homeland Security Kristjen Nielson, who was heckled in a D.C. restaurant, and later had protesters playing loud speakers outside her home.




Speaking of Hitler, these folks have the ring of such craziness...........

---

Aaand the Democrat brown shirts are out in force...


Targeting those they disagree with...

midgett said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cinque said:

---

Don't know if the nice lady who owns the resturant is Christian, but if she is, she should have told Sarah what she thinks about her work, then she should have offered to comp her meal.

---

She did comp her meal, which Sanders offered to pay for.

---

With those "facts" you could land a position on MSNBC, CNN or some other MSM.

---

They had drinks and cheese plates and had ordered their meal.

They offered to pay for what they'd eaten. The owner didn't take their money.

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

T.M.Katz said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

cinque said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

An African-American celebrity enjoys a person being refused seating in a restaurant.

---

There you go again, presenting the opinions of a person of color as nothing more than as a function of his color.

---

Nothing more than a function of his color? It seems more of a sense of irony that he seems to be celebrating someone being denied service in public accommodations based on the owner's politics, when, as an African American, he would have been first in line to be denied service not long ago because of the owner's politics.

That doesn't even begin to address the more important point that he misses entirely: the situation of the baker and the restaurant owner are in no way analogous.

---

Black people who conducted sit ins in the South were denied service because of who they were. Sarah was treated shabbily because of what she does. This is a distinction with a difference.

---

Black people were denied service because it was the law. This woman denied SHS service because she's a lunatic leftist a$s#0le.

---

so its OK to have laws denying ppl service because they're black?

---

Reading comprehension not you thing?

GolemIII said:

---

Anyone who would try and tie this political disagreement to a religious objection to catering a particular kind of biblically morally objectionable wedding is an idiot. Full stop. This is a case of not liking the person and refusing the person because of who the person is. The baker objected to the event and refused a specialized cake for the event, but offered a generic cake to the people.

As has been said, it's the owner's right to do this. Centrists, Classical Liberals and those on the Right don't disagree with a freedom to associate with and serve who and when you choose (the opposite is a leftist totalitarian demand). The owner was well within his/her rights to refuse service. At the same time, non-leftists are well within their rights to refuse to associate with the owner and to advocate others do likewise.

Here is hoping the business fails miserably and the owner eventually needs food stamps that aren't available to him/her.

---

John Locke and the ultimate freedom of decision approves the message.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Unhinged.

---

Well, ***** I guess now our R&D people are going to have to redefine what a Doc-Holliday-strength Iron-o-Meter means.

Oh well, every setback is a fresh opportunity for success.

---

Why are you always triggered?

bubbadog said:

---

So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

So the people who screamed about the cake baker but support the restaurant owner are hypocrites?

Jack and DP said:

---

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-message-86-ing-sarah-sanders-sent-to-conservatives/